Whoa, didn’t expect this…Reefer-tax madness

Bill AB 390 introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco -- where else?) would "remove all former laws remove all existing civil and criminal penalties for adults 21 years of age or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or use marijuana, without impacting existing laws proscribing dangerous activities while under the influence of marijuana, or certain conduct that exposes younger persons to marijuana."

But I suppose in the current financial environment, that California will try almost anything to bring in more revenue. And in some ways, it’s not surprising in that as pot has been on a long journey from its former status as "devil weed" and been decriminalized across the country in many states.

Now, I’m not naive, I know that the bill won’t pass…this time. This is the only the first in many little baby steps to the legalization of marijuana. The Federal governments own conflicting stance with Californians acceptance of the use of pot for medicinal purposes is still an ongoing issue.

Maybe not now, but 5-10 years, I do see it happening...

pot's awesome. it must be legalized.

Pot is the most widely used illegal drug.  Medical use is becoming more in demand.  I say tax it like a six-pack of beer.

Pot is the most widely used illegal drug.  Medical use is becoming more in demand.  I say tax it like a six-pack of beer.
i say include it free with every six pack of beer!  8)

i'm not a role model, kids. don't do drugs.

It's about time...

There isn't a rational argument for the current illegal status of marijuana, and as a taxpayer I'm starting to resent the amount of my money that goes on policing something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

It's about time...

There isn't a rational argument for the current illegal status of marijuana, and as a taxpayer I'm starting to resent the amount of my money that goes on policing something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.


Go tell that to the liquor lobby!

Tax it and use a portion of the revenue to fight the importation, sale and use of the really dangerous drugs that destroy lives and communities.

Th mob ain't gonna like this

Th mob ain't gonna like this
maybe they can get a government bailout.  :D

LOL ;D

I haven't ever used it but think it should be legalized.  No reason why it is illegal, but alcohol is not.  Mandatory sentences for marijuana are a joke.  

If this happens, I will totally be in favor of moving back to California after Rice is done with school. :D

LEGALIZE POT!!!!!


There has been so much $$$$ spent on the war against marijuana. If they legalized it and taxed it-it would be so much better for the economy. Cops will be free to go after murders & rapists rather than pot smoking hippies who don't bother anyone. And than you have all those people who are in prison for possession at taxpayers expense. Of course we could talk about the medicinal uses but then you have the pharmaceutical companies who do not want that because they would lose revenue.




Cat 

I would be very very very much in favor of it!  :D

i keep forgetting what my opinion is on this issue.

Well, if California legalizes pot and taxes it, hopefully the feds will be smart enough to respect states' rights for once.

pot's awesome. it must be legalized.

;)

I go a step further than NORML.  They say legalize it and tax it, I say legalize it and subsidize it!

8)

if it's legalized, then wouldn't there need to be new laws for how much would be legal to smoke? because some people can get pretty eff'd up on weed, so how much should be legally allowable?

if it's legalized, then wouldn't there need to be new laws for how much would be legal to smoke? because some people can get pretty eff'd up on weed, so how much should be legally allowable?


Well seeing as how you can't really OD on weed, then I suppose you're referring to how much the legal limit would be in order to drive. I suppose that would be harder to gauge, since it stays in your system for up to 30 days. I think that if you're stoned, even a little bit, you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.

In Canada, pot is illegal, but in practice the cops don't usually bust people for simple possession. As a result, we had a huge problem with stoned drivers since it wasn't technically against the law to drive under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. However, a couple of years ago, the government amended the criminal code to include provisions for drug-impaired driving, allowing cops to test drivers for drug impairment and arrest them for DUI. Now the cops have these things they can rub on your tongue which will tell them if you have smoked weed within a certain number of hours.

Exactly.  It is physically impossible to OD on weed.  I've gotten about as effed up on as you could possibly get:  Heart palpitations, panic anxiety, hallucinations, confusion, disorientation, hyperventilation...but nothing a little Valium couldn't fix.  I know one thing, it ain't fun going over the edge like that!  However, thousands of people can and do die of alcohol intoxication every year.  You can drink enough booze in one go to kill you.  Not pot.  When I "OD'd" on pot, I wasn't out breaking stuff and getting into fights;  I was in my own bedroom sh*tscared out of my mind! 

The danger of pot is habituation which can lead to denial, avoidance, depression, and sapped motivation.  Usually the individuals who encounter these problems are using pot in lieu of dealing with the pain of living life.  However, fare more people, including teenagers, use alcohol to the same ends...not to mention all those other drugs, which are far more physiologically harmful.

I simply don't see any reason to restrict pot more than booze. 

Oh, and never drive stoned.  Ever gone up the same one way street the wrong way three times in 15 minutes?  I have.  I'm lucky I didn't get arrested that night.  Driving and pot don't mix. 
::)

Well seeing as how you can't really OD on weed, then I suppose you're referring to how much the legal limmit would be in order to drive. I suppose that would be harder to gauge, since it stays in your system for up to 30 days. I think that if you're stoned, even a little bit, you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.

In Canada, pot is illegal, but in practice the cops don't usually bust people for simple possession. As a result, we had a huge problem with stoned drivers since it wasn't technically against the law to drive under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. However, a couple of years ago, the government amended the criminal code to include provisions for drug-impaired driving, allowing cops to test drivers for drug impairment and arrest them for DUI. Now the cops have these things they can rub on your tongue which will tell them if you have smoked weed within a certain number of hours.
absolutely for driving & safety. Public drunkeness is a jailable offense so there would probably be a gauge for legal amount of weed that if exceeded could mean arrest.


Exactly.  It is physically impossible to OD on weed.  I've gotten about as effed up on as you could possibly get:  Heart palpitations, panic anxiety, hallucinations, confusion, disorientation, hyperventilation...but nothing a little Valium couldn't fix.  I know one thing, it ain't fun going over the edge like that!  However, thousands of people can and do die of alcohol intoxication every year.  You can drink enough booze in one go to kill you.  Not pot.  When I "OD'd" on pot, I wasn't out breaking stuff and getting into fights;  I was in my own bedroom sh*tscared out of my mind! 

The danger of pot is habituation which can lead to denial, avoidance, depression, and sapped motivation.  Usually the individuals who encounter these problems are using pot in lieu of dealing with the pain of living life.  However, fare more people, including teenagers, use alcohol to the same ends...not to mention all those other drugs, which are far more physiologically harmful.

I simply don't see any reason to restrict pot more than booze. 

Oh, and never drive stoned.  Ever gone up the same one way street the wrong way three times in 15 minutes?  I have.  I'm lucky I didn't get arrested that night.  Driving and pot don't mix. 
::)
;D  that is too funny  & you're lucky.  I was a total doper like that back in the day and my daily habit always led to excess and i think i almost OD'd from Panama Red, because my buddy gave me one to many super chargers.  :D      check out the High Times weed contests held in Amsterdam on youtube. they're very interesting.

so where should or would legal marijuana be sold? in a drug store, grocery store, liquor store? and if this happens, then there will eventually be companies & factorys that grow it & process & package it and sell it in packs like cigarettes. the local headshop that sells papers and pipes could see a decline in business. 

so where should or would legal marijuana be sold? in a drug store, grocery store, liquor store? and if this happens, then there will eventually be companies & factorys that grow it & process & package it and sell it in packs like cigarettes. the local headshop that sells papers and pipes could see a decline in business. 


Some places in Europe they have coffee shops were they sell it much like tobacco.  It's not sold in places like a grocery store.  It's kind of like those opium dens, there but just not numerous.

so where should or would legal marijuana be sold? in a drug store, grocery store, liquor store? and if this happens, then there will eventually be companies & factorys that grow it & process & package it and sell it in packs like cigarettes. the local headshop that sells papers and pipes could see a decline in business. 

For simplicity, we could sell pot in things like ABC stores.  It would also make it harder for minors to get a hold of it.

For simplicity, we could sell pot in things like ABC stores.  It would also make it harder for minors to get a hold of it.


For real. I remember when I was in high school, booze was next to impossible to get because you had to find someone who was willing to buy it for you, and there weren't too many people that would do it. Weed however, and I assume any other street drug as well, was easy as hell to get because you could buy it yourself if you knew the right people, and the right people are never hard to find.

If weed were legal and controlled like alcohol, it would dramatically decrease youth consumption of it. I bet you that alone would have a great impact on the drop-out rate and also on the grades of many students who like to goof off and get high instead of doing their homework.

Exactly.  It is physically impossible to OD on weed.  I've gotten about as effed up on as you could possibly get:  Heart palpitations, panic anxiety, hallucinations, confusion, disorientation, hyperventilation...but nothing a little Valium couldn't fix.  I know one thing, it ain't fun going over the edge like that!...  I was in my own bedroom sh*tscared out of my mind! 


You know I've been there, and it's exactly why I don't smoke weed anymore... ever! It makes me feel uneasy at the very least, and on a bad day it can really mindfudge you. However, I'm cool with the idea of people smoking weed. I know it's not that bad of a drug even if I have made the personal choice to avoid it at all costs.

That said, it does have its negative effects, but even they are rendered insignificant compared to alcohol's destructive potential, not to mention other drugs.

You know I've been there, and it's exactly why I don't smoke weed anymore... ever! It makes me feel uneasy at the very least, and on a bad day it can really mindfudge you. However, I'm cool with the idea of people smoking weed. I know it's not that bad of a drug even if I have made the personal choice to avoid it at all costs.

That said, it does have its negative effects, but even they are rendered insignificant compared to alcohol's destructive potential, not to mention other drugs.


I quit for 12 years because it gave me panic attacks. I do enjoy it now and again.  I know people who smoke it every day, but for me I find that takes the fun out of it.
8)

Tax it and use a portion of the revenue to fight the importation, sale and use of the really dangerous drugs that destroy lives and communities.

OK... here's a question for you to think about: why keep any drugs illegal?  The stats show that illegality doesn't curb usage to any great degree, and the simple fact of their illegality means there's lots of money to be made in their supply for those people who are basically sociopaths.  In fact, I'd argue that *most* of the harm to society comes from drugs being illegal, far more than the harm to individuals that these drugs cause.

Please note that by saying "legalize", I do not mean "sell like sweets in any newsagents" as some people seem to think one has to if one is for legalization.


Some places in Europe they have coffee shops were they sell it much like tobacco.  It's not sold in places like a grocery store.  It's kind of like those opium dens, there but just not numerous.

Not quite like tobacco, which is no longer allowed to be smoked in enclosed places of work - in that in the "coffee shops" in Amsterdam, it's now legal to smoke a joint inside, but not a cigarette... so you get the silly situation of a joint being OK unless it's got tobacco in.

OK... here's a question for you to think about: why keep any drugs illegal?  The stats show that illegality doesn't curb usage to any great degree, and the simple fact of their illegality means there's lots of money to be made in their supply for those people who are basically sociopaths.  In fact, I'd argue that *most* of the harm to society comes from drugs being illegal, far more than the harm to individuals that these drugs cause.

Please note that by saying "legalize", I do not mean "sell like sweets in any newsagents" as some people seem to think one has to if one is for legalization.
Not quite like tobacco, which is no longer allowed to be smoked in enclosed places of work - in that in the "coffee shops" in Amsterdam, it's now legal to smoke a joint inside, but not a cigarette... so you get the silly situation of a joint being OK unless it's got tobacco in.


I never saw the appeal of blunts.  Seems like a waste of both tobacco and marijuana!
8)

OK... here's a question for you to think about: why keep any drugs illegal?  The stats show that illegality doesn't curb usage to any great degree, and the simple fact of their illegality means there's lots of money to be made in their supply for those people who are basically sociopaths.  In fact, I'd argue that *most* of the harm to society comes from drugs being illegal, far more than the harm to individuals that these drugs cause.


It's an argument I have thought a lot about. However, having seen first hand what serious drugs do to families and communities, I cannot reconcile myself with the idea of the larger communal authority, the State, tolerating and, inasmuch, implicitly condoning their presence, sale and use. If the State allows the legal sale of drugs like crack, meth or heroine, it is pretty much giving its seal of approval to them and legitimising them. If they legalise use but not sale, the crime element still benefits. Moreover, we have nothing concrete to actually indicate that things would improve if all drugs were legal, we only have theoretical, libertarian notions of personal freedom. But I am weary of today's savage individualism. I think the collectivity counts for more than it has recently been getting credit for.

I think that the State, insofar as it is the extension of the common will, is in fact a moral authority in matters (I'm obviously referring to a greater, humanistic morality à la thou shalt not kill, and not phony religious morality à la god hates fags). Hard drugs destroy families and thus communities. They eat away at societal cohesion, and any State would be irresponsible and in breech of its raison d'être to legitimise them.

Even though I am a harsh critic of the present government here in Canada, I must approve (partially, and at least in theory) with the Prime Minister's approach in this matter. Henceforth, Canada is getting tough on drug crime. If you're hooked on drugs, the State will help you. However, if you are caught selling or importing drugs, you will be harshly prosecuted and accordingly punished.

It's an argument I have thought a lot about. However, having seen first hand what serious drugs do to families and communities, I cannot reconcile myself with the idea of the larger communal authority, the State, tolerating and, inasmuch, implicitly condoning their presence, sale and use. If the State allows the legal sale of drugs like crack, meth or heroine, it is pretty much giving its seal of approval to them and legitimising them.
It is legitimising them, pretty much by definition, but a state giving its seal of approval to addictive drugs really isn't likely to change usage, is it?  Their current lack of approval certainly hasn't stopped anyone who wanted to give the illegal drugs a try - when cannabis was reduced to a Cat C drug, usage decreased (I'm not saying that it was a causal link, merely that relaxing the rules definitely did not cause any increase in drug usage, i.e. it was not causal in the other direction).  In practice, the huge amount of money to be made by pushing illegal drugs is the biggest motivating factor in getting more people hooked.


Moreover, we have nothing concrete to actually indicate that things would improve if all drugs were legal, we only have theoretical, libertarian notions of personal freedom. But I am weary of today's savage individualism.
I disagree - I think what happened in terms of crime and social problems caused by the prohibition of alcohol is concrete evidence of the harm to society that criminalization does.



I think that the State, insofar as it is the extension of the common will, is in fact a moral authority in matters (I'm obviously referring to a greater, humanistic morality à la thou shalt not kill, and not phony religious morality à la god hates fags). Hard drugs destroy families and thus communities. They eat away at societal cohesion, and any State would be irresponsible and in breech of its raison d'être to legitimise them.
My argument is the fact of their illegality does far more to eat away at social cohesion than the problems that drugs cause on their own, even ignoring the unbelievable cost of the anti-drug effort and prison sentences..

Read this:

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_PublishedArticles_Legalisingdrugswouldsavelives.htm

Drugs are apparently just part of life, like children or birthdays then? I think we can do better than what these people are proposing, and we can certainly do better than what we are doing now. 

They don't take theory far enough, in my opinion. They don't answer enough pertinent questions. In a world of legalised hard drugs, who sells the drugs? Are they sold at all? Are they given away? Are they prescribed? If they're sold in a similar fashion to alcohol, tobacco or prescription drugs, how are we supposed to react when our children see Crack commercials on television, or Meth ads in their favourite magazine??? The whole idea seems prespammersite. Will people have heroin-tastings at art shows?

Prohibition does cause problems, I agree. But so does full legalisation, and don't pretend that it wouldn't. There has to be a better way somewhere in between. I don't pretend to know exactly what it is.

Drugs are apparently just part of life, like children or birthdays then?
Given that governments and police forces have been trying as hard as they can for the last few decades, and drug consumption has increased pretty much every year, then I'd say yes, they are a part of life.  They have been for thousands of years.


In a world of legalised hard drugs, who sells the drugs? Are they sold at all? Are they given away? Are they prescribed? If they're sold in a similar fashion to alcohol, tobacco or prescription drugs, how are we supposed to react when our children see Crack commercials on television, or Meth ads in their favourite magazine???
Tobacco advertising is banned over here as it is - you can have drugs that can be legally purchased that aren't advertised.

My preference would be for sale in chemists, and certainly available on prescription.


The whole idea seems prespammersite. Will people have heroin-tastings at art shows?
That's just you being emotional rather than thinking about things.  Just because I'm in favour of legalization doesn't mean I think taking drugs is a good thing - simply that the current ill-thought-out "war on drugs" makes things worse, not better.


Prohibition does cause problems, I agree. But so does full legalisation, and don't pretend that it wouldn't. There has to be a better way somewhere in between. I don't pretend to know exactly what it is.

Legalization will have its own problems, yes (not least drug barons getting pissed off because they're no longer rolling in money); but the status quo is not an ideal, and spending more and more time and money fighting against something with more growth potential than a hydra is simply a waste.

I don't think we should legalize heroin, but...

it was legal at one point...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg

I don't think we should legalize heroin, but...

it was legal at one point...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg


A lot of that stuff was.  I read were people used to use laudanum recreationally, now it's deemed a controlled substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

Prior to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, you could buy heroin from Sears-Roebuck!

Laudanum calms colicky baby!

In the late 19th century there was a scourge of two year old junkies!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/freak6.gif

Of course, in the heydey of the unregulated "patent medicines," the huckster didn't have to prove to anyone what was really in the bottle.  Could be just brandy and pine pitch for all the consumer knew!

I don't think we should legalize heroin, but...

it was legal at one point...

Not just legal: heroin was introduced by Bayer as an antidote for morphine addiction (you needed so much less of it...)

But at that point, there were no "illegal drugs" - that sort of thing's a very 20th century phenomenon.


A lot of that stuff was.  I read were people used to use laudanum recreationally, now it's deemed a controlled substance.

Laudanum is opium in alcohol... fairly popular with the Victorians, though I believe that was pretty much where the awareness that it was habit-forming came about.  Opium itself has been around for millennia - there were hundreds of opium shops back in Rome during the empire (strangely enough, the Romans considered alcohol to be a problem drug, but not opium).


Laudanum calms colicky baby!

In the late 19th century there was a scourge of two-year-old junkies!
In a way, that's the whole point: there wasn't a scourge of 2yo junkies, even though they were being fed opium & alcohol to calm them down (though it's worth remembering that we're not talking about many babies here - the majority of gripe water was alcohol-only ;))

Not just legal: heroin was introduced by Bayer as an antidote for morphine addiction (you needed so much less of it...)

But at that point, there were no "illegal drugs" - that sort of thing's a very 20th century phenomenon.


In theory, I understand the logic behind legalizing all drugs.  I think, however, out of practical concerns, it must be done in a gradual manner for it to work in the modern world.

Legalizing pot is a good first step.  Perhaps, we could legalize heroin further down the road, but I don't quite think our society is ready for that right now.

Legalizing pot is a good first step.  Perhaps, we could legalize heroin further down the road, but I don't quite think our society is ready for that right now.

Maybe not.. but at the very least, if a person is already addicted to heroin, why not allow it to be prescribed by a doctor?  What I'm aiming for here is removing the profits from the drug lords (and making life a bit easier for addicts - the way they get treated now has always felt to me like kicking a man when he's down)

Maybe not.. but at the very least, if a person is already addicted to heroin, why not allow it to be prescribed by a doctor?  What I'm aiming for here is removing the profits from the drug lords (and making life a bit easier for addicts - the way they get treated now has always felt to me like kicking a man when he's down)


Hmm... that is an interesting idea.  I do believe that rehabilitation should be the primary emphasis of dealing with drug abusers rather than punishment, but if I'm not mistaken, we already prescribe things like methadone to handle heroin addicts.

Not just legal: heroin was introduced by Bayer as an antidote for morphine addiction (you needed so much less of it...)

But at that point, there were no "illegal drugs" - that sort of thing's a very 20th century phenomenon.
Laudanum is opium in alcohol... fairly popular with the Victorians, though I believe that was pretty much where the awareness that it was habit-forming came about.  Opium itself has been around for millennia - there were hundreds of opium shops back in Rome during the empire (strangely enough, the Romans considered alcohol to be a problem drug, but not opium).
In a way, that's the whole point: there wasn't a scourge of 2yo junkies, even though they were being fed opium & alcohol to calm them down (though it's worth remembering that we're not talking about many babies here - the majority of gripe water was alcohol-only ;))


It seems to be the preferred gripe water for all ages!
;)

Hmm... that is an interesting idea.  I do believe that rehabilitation should be the primary emphasis of dealing with drug abusers rather than punishment, but if I'm not mistaken, we already prescribe things like methadone to handle heroin addicts.


They do, but it depends on your city and your resources.  Some states don't like to fund methadone clinics and rehab programs, so resources are scant unless you can pay five grand a month for a private treatment program.  There's also a very high rate of recidivism for treatment programs unless the addict is in fact ready to quit. 

Incarceration is counterproductive for drug abusers.  Addicts are extremely resourceful when it comes to feeding the addiction; there's plenty of dope to be found in prison.  Sometimes an addict might get "clean" in jail, but as they hit the streets, they're right back on the horse. 

There comes a time when the addict himself is ready to give up the drugs.  Then success is possible.  Unfortunately, death might come before this time.
:(

Pot is fine with me, but the rest reminds me of Soma from Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Pot is fine with me, but the rest reminds me of Soma from Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Or as the folks back home used to say, "Opium is the religion of the masses"!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/occasion16.gif

Interesting, the ball is really in play and changes to laws on pot have more momentum than first realized...Bill proposes that Oregon grow, sell pot to medical users.

For Oregon, this may not be such a revelation, medical marijuana has been legal since 1998 and this bill would not only generate large tax revenue ($98 per ounce!) it would also help protect those contracted to grow for the state, it would also help insure the standardization of the quality and safety of the pot medical users receive.

Interesting, the ball is really in play and changes to laws on pot have more momentum than first realized...Bill proposes that Oregon grow, sell pot to medical users.

For Oregon, this may not be such a revelation, medical marijuana has been legal since 1998 and this bill would not only generate large tax revenue ($98 per ounce!) it would also help protect those contracted to grow for the state, it would also help insure the standardization of the quality and safety of the pot medical users receive.


You bring up a good point.  If we were able to grow our own it would put a damper on the drug war down in Mexico.